Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[Hollie]

[
the ability in nature for a Being to transform from one shape to another is readily proven / provided by Metamorphosis, the process of speciation when the Being over time sets in motion for a single instance the time accumulated information for a transformation to take place does so in the extreme case creating an entirely new species using the " mathematical equation " available in nature, the Metamorphic process for speciation.

crossing the void is the inescapable requirement for Spiritual Remittance to the Everlasting as Commanded by the Almighty to Accomplish Immortality - a form of Speciation also known as a Sabbath.

a perfect completion.

.

if it proves anything metamorphosis proves that the origin of butterflies by evolution is an absurd notion.....we've covered that extensively before......

Are you still suffering the affects of your time spent at the Pat Robertson madrassah?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

We've watched it happen in ring species that can no longer interbreed. We've watched it in bacteria and viruses in labs and in the wild. It doesn't take billions upon billions on years to illustrate the point.

Older T. rex fossils show larger eye ridges than later T. rex fossils. We can see the changes within the existence of a single species from the time it came on the scene to its extinction.

Give me something better than an "older T-rex fossil" please. That thing's so old that even the rain and wind has worn it away. Show me a half-bird, half-fish or something. Show me your monkey doing algebra.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.

dude....what do you have in a hundred years.....two, three generations?....that alone should be enough to clue you in that it isn't evolution that is involved.....its penicillin, child labor laws and improved diet.........

 

[PostmodernProph]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

one of God's more interesting creations......

Nah. That would be the blueprint for the cancer cell.....

literally, the blueprint for a cancerous cell would be DNA, so I am forced to agree with you........

 

[PostmodernProph]

[
the ability in nature for a Being to transform from one shape to another is readily proven / provided by Metamorphosis, the process of speciation when the Being over time sets in motion for a single instance the time accumulated information for a transformation to take place does so in the extreme case creating an entirely new species using the " mathematical equation " available in nature, the Metamorphic process for speciation.

crossing the void is the inescapable requirement for Spiritual Remittance to the Everlasting as Commanded by the Almighty to Accomplish Immortality - a form of Speciation also known as a Sabbath.

a perfect completion.

.

if it proves anything metamorphosis proves that the origin of butterflies by evolution is an absurd notion.....we've covered that extensively before......

Are you still suffering the affects of your time spent at the Pat Robertson madrassah?

are you still under a magical spell of compulsion that prohibits you from engaging in an honest, intelligent discussion?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....

 

[PostmodernProph]

You're demonically insane.

she may be Satan's sock puppet....

 

[Taz]

We've watched it happen in ring species that can no longer interbreed. We've watched it in bacteria and viruses in labs and in the wild. It doesn't take billions upon billions on years to illustrate the point.

Older T. rex fossils show larger eye ridges than later T. rex fossils. We can see the changes within the existence of a single species from the time it came on the scene to its extinction.

Give me something better than an "older T-rex fossil" please. That thing's so old that even the rain and wind has worn it away. Show me a half-bird, half-fish or something. Show me your monkey doing algebra.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.

dude....what do you have in a hundred years.....two, three generations?....that alone should be enough to clue you in that it isn't evolution that is involved.....its penicillin, child labor laws and improved diet.........

That's a species evolving... It's a lot of tiny steps that over a long period of time add up. Now you know.

 

[Taz]

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....

I own you over Noah. You still haven't explained properly how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again. Polar bears. Arctic foxes...

 

[Hollie]

[
the ability in nature for a Being to transform from one shape to another is readily proven / provided by Metamorphosis, the process of speciation when the Being over time sets in motion for a single instance the time accumulated information for a transformation to take place does so in the extreme case creating an entirely new species using the " mathematical equation " available in nature, the Metamorphic process for speciation.

crossing the void is the inescapable requirement for Spiritual Remittance to the Everlasting as Commanded by the Almighty to Accomplish Immortality - a form of Speciation also known as a Sabbath.

a perfect completion.

.

if it proves anything metamorphosis proves that the origin of butterflies by evolution is an absurd notion.....we've covered that extensively before......

Are you still suffering the affects of your time spent at the Pat Robertson madrassah?

are you still under a magical spell of compulsion that prohibits you from engaging in an honest, intelligent discussion?.......

Sure. You're just incapable of engaging that.

It must be the will of the gawds.

 

[Hollie]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

one of God's more interesting creations......

Nah. That would be the blueprint for the cancer cell.....

literally, the blueprint for a cancerous cell would be DNA, so I am forced to agree with you........

That suggests really incompetent design skills on the part of your gawds. Did none of your three gawds check the others' work?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.
- and if Adamic man appeared just 50K years ago ...

World s Oldest Stone Tools - Archaeology Magazine Archive

More than 2,600 sharp-edged flakes, flake fragments, and cores (cobbles from which flakes have been removed), found in the fine-grained sediments of a dry riverbed in the Afar region of Ethiopia, have been dated to between 2.52 and 2.60 million years ago, pushing back by more than 150,000 years the known date at which humans were making stone tools.

who was responsible for the above tools, 2.5 million years ago irregardless their genetics ?

.

Pay attention: the Bible tells us that mankind is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old relative to the genealogy pertinent to the biblical narrative only. It does not necessarily tell us how old mankind is, no more than the Bible tells us how old the universe or the Earth is.

.

mdr: Pay attention: the Bible tells us that mankind is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old relative to the genealogy pertinent to the biblical narrative only. It does not necessarily tell us how old mankind is, no more than the Bible tells us how old the universe or the Earth is.

.

relativistically speaking you have not demonstrated a verifiable example of Adamic Mankind distinct among the vast physical examples prevalent world wide through scientific research available to all concerned that would date back any further than your earlier stated point of time ~ 50,000 years - the prevalence of modern mankind.

and worse for your indefensible position the variety of present day mankind represented by hundreds of different races, for even on the same continents ... unless you are specifically speaking about a select chosen few of a single race that are the only descendants applicable to the Adamic lineage whereas all others and all other beings in regards to your religious beliefs have neither Spirits nor an avenue to the eternal Everlasting, you still have not provided appropriate physical evidence for their existence. than maybe yourself ...

only by the scriptures you have chosen to abide irregardless their veracity in total as the sole source for your convictions can you come to any other erroneous conclusion is the proof against physical evidence for the futility of the biblical religions.

.

Your sick, pathological hatred for Christianity and your decision to follow after the religion of ontological naturalism are your problem, not mine.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

The subset of Conservatives who believe in the simplistic biblical version of Creation is amazingly small; like 1/10 of 1%. The vast majority accept Darwin and evolution.

Nobody gives a shit what you think. As usual you ignorant liberals cannot read or don't bother to read. If you did, you'd know that this thread was directed toward people who believe in Creation, not illiterate moron lefties. Go away.

You are calling ME an illiterate moron lefty?

Where the hell do you get that?

Lol, you didn't even read my response did you? It's all there. Or is it you are unable to read? Probably both, you illiterate left wing nut job.

By the way, PredFan, this site is quite fascinating relative to both of our perspectives. I am not entirely immune to this potentiality.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I am an agnostic, I do not believe I know whether there is a diety or not. What other people really know, I cannot say, because I am not a mind reader. However, I do like the sentiment of this song.

God wrote both—the Bible and the general revelation of creation. She only wrote a song and sang it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/

The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.

That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

 

[the_human_being]

We've watched it happen in ring species that can no longer interbreed. We've watched it in bacteria and viruses in labs and in the wild. It doesn't take billions upon billions on years to illustrate the point.

Older T. rex fossils show larger eye ridges than later T. rex fossils. We can see the changes within the existence of a single species from the time it came on the scene to its extinction.

Give me something better than an "older T-rex fossil" please. That thing's so old that even the rain and wind has worn it away. Show me a half-bird, half-fish or something. Show me your monkey doing algebra.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.

dude....what do you have in a hundred years.....two, three generations?....that alone should be enough to clue you in that it isn't evolution that is involved.....its penicillin, child labor laws and improved diet.........

Actually, from my own observations, the introduction of the SNAP program has been a direct cause for ours becoming an obese and lazy society.

 

[the_human_being]

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....

I own you over Noah. You still haven't explained properly how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again. Polar bears. Arctic foxes...

You own no one over Noah. You went on there with kangaroos on your brain and asked your question. You received many responses including one from me. Your mind was already made up so you dismissed each and every response you received and attacked those kind enough to respond to you. You made a total ass out of yourself and the people stopped engaging you. The problem is that you are simply too ignorant to realize that they all quickly saw that you were a total asshole.

 

[the_human_being]

You're demonically insane.

she may be Satan's sock puppet....

She's certainly his poster girl. Like Satan though, she knows her time is short.

 

[Taz]

The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/

The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.

That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Raw, I checked out your link, the guy is insane. He's obsessed with trying to disprove something (that he can't), so that his invisible friend will be the only other option. That's not how it works, you have it ass-backwards.

 

[Taz]

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....

I own you over Noah. You still haven't explained properly how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again. Polar bears. Arctic foxes...

You own no one over Noah. You went on there with kangaroos on your brain and asked your question. You received many responses including one from me. Your mind was already made up so you dismissed each and every response you received and attacked those kind enough to respond to you. You made a total ass out of yourself and the people stopped engaging you. The problem is that you are simply too ignorant to realize that they all quickly saw that you were a total asshole.

No, I dismissed no plausible theory about how the marsupial got around. Just the Kooky ones. I'm still waiting for a plausible concept, if you have an update over that.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Give me something better than an "older T-rex fossil" please. That thing's so old that even the rain and wind has worn it away. Show me a half-bird, half-fish or something. Show me your monkey doing algebra.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.

dude....what do you have in a hundred years.....two, three generations?....that alone should be enough to clue you in that it isn't evolution that is involved.....its penicillin, child labor laws and improved diet.........

That's a species evolving... It's a lot of tiny steps that over a long period of time add up. Now you know.

so you believe we are turning into something other than the species homo sapien?.....